Posted on 12/05/2008 5:27:37 PM PST by Kaslin
Transition: Amid the heavyweights on Barack Obama's economic team, his choice for trade rep doesn't measure up. Congressman Xavier Becerra is not only a protectionist, he would compromise U.S. moral authority.
Becerra's name has apparently been put forward for USTR as a sop to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She wants her people in the new administration, and she has always seen to it that the former congressional aide has gotten plum assignments.
Becerra, whose district stretches from Hollywood to East Los Angeles, is also a friend of Big Labor. Half his campaign funds over a 15-year congressional career have come from unions, many of them public. Thea Lee, architect of the AFL-CIO's protectionist agenda, has given Becerra's likely nomination her approval.
Becerra also doesn't seem to know the difference between free-trade agreements and normal trade relations. He justified his vote against a treaty with Oman, for example, by citing the U.S. trade deficit with China.
(Excerpt) Read more at ibdeditorials.com ...
If he upsets the shills for crony capitalism - masquerading or self-deluding themselves as proponents of a free market - then he can't be all that bad.
Interesting, but the real question is, why did Free Trade come to be the whipping boy of the US Economy and declining wages?
If Free Trade was viewed as a success, no way this guy is even mentioned as the Trade Rep.
Normally I would agree, however the Columbia Trade deal should be passed, it makes sense to pass it, but I seriously doubt it will pass.
Quite the opposite.
This guy Becerra sounds like the Pat Buchanan dream candidate, the globalists, and free traders nightmare imho.
disagree.
Absolutely! We conservatives should ignore Becerra’s record and resume and embrace our new government overlords!
It's a Democrat thing. Just like health care. People want the government to take care of them. Some FReepers included.
WHAT! You mean he actually had the gall to oppose a free trade agreement with Oman? It's one thing if Zero wants to fill his cabinet with socialists and envirowackos, but someone who would actually oppose trading with Oman is where I draw the line.
/sarc off. Sometimes I wonder how much the free-trade god had to pay when he bought off the souls of the globalists.
Well, Obamao ran on a Anti Free Trade platform of redoing NAFTA, McCain ran a on pro FT platform, and the Dems have been anti FT for years now, at least since 04, it hasn’t hurt them at the ballot box..in fact it appears to have helped win votes and Seats.
Free Trade is a political loser issue now, it is seen as a tool of Corporations to the detriment of blue collar (and others) wages.
In other words: if he is against economic freedom, then the 'real' conservatives [those that don't really like a limited government and wish to legislate everything at the federal level] should embrace him?
When we opened our economy to foreign goods and they (mainly Asia) kept theirs closed to US producers.
I think there is more to it then that Last Dakotan, the voters have moved passed any sort of demand for accountability out of China and into simply rejecting Free Trade and Globalism out of hand.
IBD is hand wringing over this man’s nomination, they are missing how disenchanted Americans are with the whole free trade/globalist system.
Look at the formerly Red States that Obama turned blue, NC, VA, IN, they all have suffered large job losses in low education, but higher paying jobs due to Free Trade pacts.
So once those voters are alienated, and the upper earners went Obama, who is left to vote Republican?
In order to do this they must first begin putting tariffs into place.
That sounds like it to me.
Amazing << Hear this. Feel this, and tell me that this isn't music.
Groove to Black Violin EPK, too.
My wife worked for McCain in the past election-went door to door, telephone and some fund raising. Yes, she did not like McCain, but thought he was a better choice. Anyway, she told me that people identified as Repubs told her they were voting for Obama because of trade-they could not afford to vote for McCain. Ohio is a mess because of job losses. Free trade has been an abject failure. As for the Colombian agreement, it is a political gift for Columbia from Bush. Trade should not be a carrot in the diplomacy game. It’s too important.
I consider free trade to be a misnomer. There is nothing free about this trade which is all one way.
Exactly, especially among people who are High School educated only (but not exclusively), Free Trade has come to mean a loss of a job, a loss of earning ability and opportunities.
I also try my hand at activism and Free Trade has quite simply become a loser of an issue, it pretty much frightens people into voting Democrat.
However the deal with Columbia is meant not only to increase trade, it is also meant to pressure Hugo Chavez and to isolate the FARC terrorists even further, otherwise I would not favor the deal.
It's fair to claim that trade is a losing issue for 52% (or whatever) of the electorate, just as it's fair to claim that health care is. I'd like to see someone make the distinction . . . since it's pretty clear that most of the country wants some sort of socialized medicine, why shouldn't "conservatives" throw a sop to those voters? If I'm going to pay money out of my pocket so that the government may choose who gets to keep their jobs, how do I resist the government trying to make me pay out of my pocket so they get healthcare? Where exactly does this "cradle to grave" thing stop?
It appears as though the fight is against an entitlement mentality. Almost as if people fear the word "free" in "free trade."
How can exchange of one thing for another be one-way?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.